September
01st
  1:16:57 PM

Calling all monogamous men

Family scholar Patrick Fagan has come up with an elegant schema contrasting “monogamous” culture with other kinds of sexual culture which he calls, collectively, “polyamorous”. Speaking at the World Congress of Families recently in Amsterdam, he highlighted the gulf that exists between the two cultures in terms of values and practical consequences. And he proposed a solution.

Fagan, who is with the Family Research Council, argued that these cultures can only co-exist in once society if parents in both are given control over the programs that cause conflict: education, adolescent health and sex education.

At present, he said, the polyamorous culture is expanding through its control of these three areas by means of the public bureaucracy, snatching children away from their parents by drawing them into sexual activity. Each time this happens, the polyamorists have won several “victories”:

* The adolescent has been initiated into the polyamorous culture (albeit without knowledge of what is at stake) by having his first sexual experience outside of marriage;

* With the out of wedlock births or abortions that follow they have broken the family before it has started, solidifying the polyamorous stature of the adolescent or young adult;

* And, especially, they have pulled the young person away from participating in the sacred because formerly religious teenagers who begin to engage regularly in sex outside of marriage tend to stop worshipping God.

They -- the polys -- even fight any attempt by monos to defend their kids, through abstinence education, for example, or home schooling. And all this while the poly culture is being subsidised by the mono through tax funded welfare. As Fagan says, it’s simply unjust; the polys should have to pay their own way.

One way to progress in this direction and to make the behavioral bureaucracy to serve both cultures is to give all parents, parents of both cultures, and control over the program money set aside for their children. That is giving parents vouchers, in one form or another for all three program areas

The social welfare safety net will still be in place but the parents (be they monogamous or polyamorous) will choose who holds the net in place for their children.

Fagan admits it will require a huge political effort. And this is where the monogamous men come in. It’s their job, above all, to protect the family, he says.

Monogamy men will be expected to fight for control over is what is his and his family’s just due, what his taxes fund, and what he can use in raising his children: control over the three big programs of childhood education, sex education and adolescent health programs, so that they can be carried out in a way that supports the norms of monogamy culture. In this rearrangement polyamory parents have the same control to do as they wish for their children.

That seems fair. What about it?



 
about this blog | Bookmark and Share

Search this blog

 Subscribe to FamilyEdge
rss RSS feed of posts

 Recent Posts
How men contribute to Australian happiness
24 May 2012
Truth or lies: a parenting challenge
23 May 2012
Girl violence and the parent gap
21 May 2012
Ottawa exhibition modified after complaints
17 May 2012
Self-control is the only magic bullet
16 May 2012

 MercatorNet blogs
Style and culture: Tiger Print
US political scene: Sheila Liaugminas
News about bioethics: BioEdge
From the editors: Conniptions

 Archive
May 2012 | Apr 2012 | Mar 2012 | more >>

 From MercatorNet's home page

Sensing the sacred
25 May 2012
Is there a sense of the sacred that even the non-religious can share?

Could geoengineering save the planet?
25 May 2012
And who is thinking about the ethics of a technological quick fix?

A thought experiment about marriage
24 May 2012
A world in which sexual intimacy could not produce children would never have come up with the idea of marriage.

Australia’s lifeline: its precarious sea lanes
23 May 2012
Large, isolated and rich, Australia needs to cultivate a friendship with the US to survive in an dangerous world.

It’s only natural
22 May 2012
The bitterest debates today in the public square often turn on what is "natural". The Chinese sages had a lot…


 Tags
Obama, child abuse, violence, United States, divorce, contraception, teen pregnancy, working mothers, New Zealand, pornography, obesity, social networking, abstinence, gender equality, commitment, fathers, motherhood, family breakdown, family meals, UK, men, character, psychology, morality, South Africa, child obesity, immigration, education of children, HIVAIDS, Australia, prostitution, sexual behaviour, same-sex marriage, birth control, adoption, unemployment, sex education, recession, ageing, adolescence, fashion, girls, family economics, education, social media, homosexuality, polygamy, technology, large families, character education, smacking, economics, feminism, sexualisation of children, schools, self-control, one-child policy, research, children's health, poverty, demography, AIDS, friendship, gendercide, television, video games, media ethics, dating, France, Hollywood, young adult, parenting, family values, family policy, trafficking, Canada, happiness, gender, abortion, family relationships, child wellbeing, child safety, teenagers, mental health, fatherhood, cohabitation, books, baby boomers, media, internet, child development, child behaviour, brain, childcare, work-life balance, single motherhood, work, religion, emerging adults, European Union, celebrities, Spain, parental rights, family, marriage, family structure, children, health, child welfare, youth, suicide, Sweden, China, United Nations, Africa, women, anger, fertility,